Multilead Open API MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions deletion but fails to specify if it's irreversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., removing associated data). The return statement hints at confirmation but doesn't detail error handling or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Delete a lead by ID'), followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameter but lacks critical context like irreversible effects, permissions, or error scenarios. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but behavioral gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains 'lead_id' as 'The unique identifier of the lead to delete', adding essential meaning beyond the schema's type definition. However, it doesn't specify format (e.g., UUID, numeric) or validation rules.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Delete') and target resource ('a lead by ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_lead', 'update_lead', or 'get_lead'. It precisely communicates the tool's function without redundancy.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'update_lead' for modifications, 'pause_lead_execution' for temporary halts). The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as confirming the lead exists or ensuring no active campaigns are affected.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.